Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen

Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> The "some animals" in that statement refers not to some miniscule
> >> >> statistical number, but massive and systematic harm. In that sense the
> >> >> statement is entirely correct. The AR/vegan idealism only holds
> >> >> together
> >> >> if
> >> >> veganism by it's nature eliminates all but statisically small amounts
> >> >> of
> >> >> animal harm. It does not do that.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> To paraphrase that stupidity;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to
> >> >> >> *some* [humans] is acceptable, then the theoretical
> >> >> >> concept of "[human] rights" collapses utterly and
> >> >> >> must be discarded in favor of a more logical world-
> >> >> >> view."
> >> >> >> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human"
> >> >> > makes no difference to the logic here.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes it absolutely does make a difference. Derek slyly removed the
> >> >> first
> >> >> sentence from the paragraph which changes the context. The entire
> >> >> paragraph
> >> >> is...
> >> >>
> >> >> <----start------>
> >> >> Under normal circumstances we always can avoid harm to humans.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a
> >> > result
> >> > of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global
> >> > warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances".
> >>
> >> You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference
> >> between
> >> doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something
> >> that
> >> kills outright.

> >
> > Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
> > collateral and intentional animal deaths?

>
> Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk
> of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
> populations.


Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
kind. Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
"statistical" deaths.
>
> > There is little doubt that
> > human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
> > warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
> > floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
> > of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
> > a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.

>
> It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to the
> treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied subdivisions with
> giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.


If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
entirely of degree. If you wish to make distinctions based on how
"direct"
,for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no reason to
deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the head and
undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.
>
> >> >> We don't
> >> >> continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans.
> >> >
> >> > Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but it
> >> > is still there.
> >>
> >> On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear accidents,
> >> not
> >> on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.

> >
> > Granted.

>
> That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some* harm
> always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.


That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
style. By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
harm principle" quite pertinent.

> >> >> If we
> >> >> are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
> >> >> acceptable,
> >> >> then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and
> >> >> must
> >> >> be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.
> >> >
> >> > Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths that
> >> > are
> >> > an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
> >> > activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of yet
> >> > more
> >> > animals.
> >>
> >> It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place it
> >> into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products
> >> actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think,
> >> then
> >> that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die either
> >> way,

> >
> > Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
> > simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.

>
> The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
> production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
> produced.


Of course.

> >> so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad dichotomy
> >> between farming animals and not doing so,

> >
> > Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
> > between,...

>
> If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
> collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by non-vegan
> foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.


Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
rather harder to establish.

> >> provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly.

> >
> > Yes. That's a very important qualification.
> >
> >> >> <----end----->
> >> >>
> >> >> The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet"
> >> >> status
> >> >> that vegans like to pretend to is a sham.
> >> >
> >> > Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim that
> >> > it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous.
> >>
> >> I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating,
> >> misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done
> >> with
> >> honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable.
> >>
> >> >> Animals are killed in large
> >> >> numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy
> >> >> in
> >> >> that light is an outright lie.
> >> >
> >> > This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather more
> >> > convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed but
> >> > it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve
> >> > fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant
> >> > foods.
> >>
> >> That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view.

> >
> > The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock
> > farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt
> > that some day.

>
> Read this. http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/...malsplace.html


Thanks for that. There was one particular fragment of the article that
made an impression on me: " a human morality based on individual
rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world.
This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human
culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good
for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an
adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric
to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature?"

It makes a certain pragmatic sense to adopt a moral duality; a system
of thought to guide our conduct within the "human realm" and a seperate

system to guide our conduct within the "natural realm".

> >> >
> >> >> It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it
> >> >> must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive.
> >> >


  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


Dutch wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote
> >
> > Derek wrote:
> >> On 18 Jun 2006 17:10:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Derek seems determined to take your statements at face value rather
> >> >than study your clarifications.
> >>
> >> No, I take ALL statements at face value and then demand
> >> clarification when they make no sense.

> >
> > I have absolutely no problem with that.

>
> Except he is telling a bald-faced lie, in this case he took my original
> statement at face value, concluded that it made no sense, then not only
> didn't ask for a clarification, he then refused to accept a clarification
> when it was offered, because it undermined the case he had built up against
> me using the original imperfect statement.


Yes. The rest of my paragraph says more or less the same thing.
What I meant was that I had no problem with him taking your
statement at face value, initially, before you clarified it for him.
>
> > In this instance he
> > clarified his position describing his previous use of langauge
> > as informal (personally I would use the term inaccurate) but
> > instead of accepting his clarifications you continued to attack
> > the original statements. To me that's assaulting a strawman.
> >
> >> Take his latest, for example;
> >>
> >> "I do not believe that animals hold a moral right not to
> >> be killed by humans because the idea is not plausible.
> >> It *is* plausible that animals can hold a right against
> >> us not to be abused."
> >> Dutch Jun 18 2006 http://tinyurl.com/e9p4d
> >>
> >> That stupidity demands clarification because he's trying
> >> to make the claim that a lesser moral harm trumps a
> >> greater one,

> >
> > Perhaps he is arguing that it is practical and realistic
> > to grant rights against the lesser moral harm but not
> > against the greater moral harm. Perhaps he disputes
> > that slaughter is a greater moral harm to an animal
> > than abuse. Perhaps both.

>
> Read what I wrote again, particularly the word "plausible", morals have to
> be plausible. For example we can't say that it's is immoral to kill plants,
> that's not plausible. We could decide that it is immoral to kill white
> roses, that *is* plausible, but why should we do that? It makes more sense
> to allow people to kill their own white roses if they want to. By the same
> reasoning it's not plausible to say it's immoral to kill animals. Animal
> life is as ubiquitous as plant life, probably more so. So we can say it's
> immoral to kill, say pigs, but why should we?
>
> The only context in which killing an animal is comparable to abusing it is
> when it is killed in the course of or as a form of abuse, in that case it is
> a severe outcome of abuse. If an animal is killed in a justifiable way, then
> it has no relation to abuse. Killing and abuse (i.e. torture) are two
> completely different things. Torture is virtually always considered wrong in
> every circumstance. Killing is not, killing is part of living, it's a harsh
> reality of life.


This appears to me to be a fully adequate clarification of your
position.

> >
> >> but when asked for it he refuses to give it,
> >> opting instead to try and make the case that PeTA holds
> >> the same wrong view as he does. So how can you say
> >> that I'm "determined to take [his] statements at face
> >> value RATHER than study for [his] clarifications," you
> >> arse-licking ******?

> >
> > Arse-licking. Isn't that what you do to Leif?

>
> He sure does. He turns into an obseqiuous little toady when addressing Leif,
> despite the fact that their views are 180 degrees apart.
>
> >> > Perhaps he is more interested in point scoring than anything else.
> >>
> >> If revealing his and your stupidity is point scoring, then
> >> so be it because the tally is enormous and still growing.

> >


  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


"Dave" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:


[..]

>> > Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
>> > collateral and intentional animal deaths?

>>
>> Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term
>> risk
>> of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
>> populations.

>
> Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
> kind. Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
> over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
> deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
> fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
> chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
> "statistical" deaths.


Some of that is valid, but the majority of animal harm in agriculture is
much more immediate and large-scale. Pesticides and herbicides are lethal to
small animals, and Davis concludes that running machinery through fields is
also.

>> > There is little doubt that
>> > human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
>> > warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
>> > floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
>> > of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
>> > a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.

>>
>> It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to
>> the
>> treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied subdivisions
>> with
>> giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.

>
> If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
> entirely of degree.


A difference in numbers counted in many orders of magnitude amounts to a
difference in kind.

If you wish to make distinctions based on how
> "direct"
> ,for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no reason to
> deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the head and
> undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.


It's not a matter of directness, that wasn't my point. If using a field for
agriculture negatively impacts *most* of the animals on the land, killing,
poisoning, injuring or displacing them, then that is different than
acknowledging that once in a while an animal is caught in the thresher. The
latter would be classed as a statistical anomaly and not a moral factor.


>>
>> >> >> We don't
>> >> >> continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of
>> >> >> humans.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but
>> >> > it
>> >> > is still there.
>> >>
>> >> On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear
>> >> accidents,
>> >> not
>> >> on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.
>> >
>> > Granted.

>>
>> That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some* harm
>> always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.

>
> That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
> style.


It depends on how you figure the degree of harm. I assume that it is
massive, you may think it's statisically insignificant.

> By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
> harm principle" quite pertinent.


He does not conclude that the harm done by threshing machines alone is
statistically insignificant, not even factoring in plowing or spraying. He
finds that animal populations are seriously decimated.

>> >> >> If we
>> >> >> are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
>> >> >> acceptable,
>> >> >> then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> must
>> >> >> be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.
>> >> >
>> >> > Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths
>> >> > that
>> >> > are
>> >> > an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
>> >> > activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of
>> >> > yet
>> >> > more
>> >> > animals.
>> >>
>> >> It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place
>> >> it
>> >> into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products
>> >> actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think,
>> >> then
>> >> that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die
>> >> either
>> >> way,
>> >
>> > Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
>> > simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.

>>
>> The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
>> production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
>> produced.

>
> Of course.


Which is why it's a fallacy to simple compare vegetables and meat.
>
>> >> so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad
>> >> dichotomy
>> >> between farming animals and not doing so,
>> >
>> > Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
>> > between,...

>>
>> If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
>> collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by
>> non-vegan
>> foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.

>
> Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
> to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
> rather harder to establish.


It's simple to follow, if you place very little value on enjoyment of food,
but it apparently is not simple to follow AND at the same time acknowledge
the limitations of the diet philosophy.


>> >> provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly.
>> >
>> > Yes. That's a very important qualification.
>> >
>> >> >> <----end----->
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet"
>> >> >> status
>> >> >> that vegans like to pretend to is a sham.
>> >> >
>> >> > Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim
>> >> > that
>> >> > it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous.
>> >>
>> >> I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating,
>> >> misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done
>> >> with
>> >> honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable.
>> >>
>> >> >> Animals are killed in large
>> >> >> numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights"
>> >> >> dichotomy
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> that light is an outright lie.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather
>> >> > more
>> >> > convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed
>> >> > but
>> >> > it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve
>> >> > fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant
>> >> > foods.
>> >>
>> >> That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view.
>> >
>> > The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock
>> > farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt
>> > that some day.

>>
>> Read this. http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/...malsplace.html

>
> Thanks for that. There was one particular fragment of the article that
> made an impression on me: " a human morality based on individual
> rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world.
> This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human
> culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good
> for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an
> adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric
> to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature?"
>
> It makes a certain pragmatic sense to adopt a moral duality; a system
> of thought to guide our conduct within the "human realm" and a seperate
>
> system to guide our conduct within the "natural realm".


This is common sense, and it's a point I have been trying to get across.
ARAs cry foul because they imagine that we ought to use "equal
consideration" when dealing with humans and animals, yet any attempts to
define what that means in practice fail, predictably, because it's not
plausible.


>> >> >
>> >> >> It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it
>> >> >> must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and
>> >> >> inclusive.
>> >> >

>



  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen

Dave wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>>"Dave" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dave" > wrote in message
legroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Dave" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "some animals" in that statement refers not to some miniscule
>>>>>>statistical number, but massive and systematic harm. In that sense the
>>>>>>statement is entirely correct. The AR/vegan idealism only holds
>>>>>>together
>>>>>>if
>>>>>>veganism by it's nature eliminates all but statisically small amounts
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>animal harm. It does not do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>To paraphrase that stupidity;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "If we are going to inevitably decide that harm to
>>>>>>>> *some* [humans] is acceptable, then the theoretical
>>>>>>>> concept of "[human] rights" collapses utterly and
>>>>>>>> must be discarded in favor of a more logical world-
>>>>>>>> view."
>>>>>>>> Dutch Sep 18 2002 http://tinyurl.com/e4n9s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree that replacing the term "animal" with "human"
>>>>>>>makes no difference to the logic here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it absolutely does make a difference. Derek slyly removed the
>>>>>>first
>>>>>>sentence from the paragraph which changes the context. The entire
>>>>>>paragraph
>>>>>>is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>><----start------>
>>>>>>Under normal circumstances we always can avoid harm to humans.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a
>>>>>result
>>>>>of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global
>>>>>warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances".
>>>>
>>>>You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference
>>>>between
>>>>doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something
>>>>that
>>>>kills outright.
>>>
>>>Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
>>>collateral and intentional animal deaths?

>>
>>Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk
>>of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
>>populations.

>
>
> Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
> kind.


The difference in numbers is several orders of
magnitude, dummy. A difference that large tells you
there is some *underlying* difference in kind.

What do you suppose it is, davey "pesco-vegan"? Let's
see, below...


> Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
> over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
> deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
> fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
> chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
> "statistical" deaths.


davey, *why* do you suppose there is no mitigation in
place for those things, except in cases of endangered
species? That is, apart from species that are
threatened or endangered, no mitigation is required for
the use of the technologies you mentioned in order to
prevent animal deaths. Our concern is not with
individual animals, who have no right nor expectation
of not being harmed, but rather with species that we
don't want to see become extinct.

But it's different with humans. Technology use must be
done in such a way that the threat to *individual*
humans is minimized. Not only that, but mitigation
efforts are ongoing and constant: cars, appliances,
airplanes, etc. are safer today than they were in 1996,
and they were safer in 1996 than they were in 1986, and
so on.

What do you suppose the difference in kind is, davey,
you ****wit?


>>>There is little doubt that
>>>human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
>>>warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
>>>floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
>>>of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
>>>a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.

>>
>>It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to the
>>treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied subdivisions with
>>giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.

>
>
> If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
> entirely of degree. If you wish to make distinctions based on how
> "direct", for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no
> reason to deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the
> head and undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.


See above, "pesco-vegan", you ****wit. These are not
"merely statistical" differences. There is an
underlying difference in kind that LEADS TO the
orders-of-magnitude difference.


>>>>>>We don't
>>>>>>continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of humans.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals but it
>>>>>is still there.
>>>>
>>>>On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear accidents,


The likelihood of a nuclear accident is extremely
small. Worrying about perishing in a nuclear accident,
or an airplane crash, is a great example of focusing on
the wrong probability.

The wrong probability to which people pay too much
attention, and therefore worry needlessly, is the
conditional probability: *given* that the airplane in
which I'm traveling crashes - that's the condition -
*then* what is the probability that I'll die? That
conditional probability is obviously quite high,
approaching 1, but it's the wrong one on which to focus.

The correct probability is the joint probability: what
is the probability that the plane on which I'm
traveling crashes *and* that I die in the crash? The
probability of the plane crash is extremely small, so
the joint probability also is small. The same holds
for nuclear accidents. If you live near a nuke plant,
and it has a major Chernobyl-scale accident, then the
probability of dying is very high; but the probability
of the accident happening in the first place is
extremely low.


>>>>not on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.
>>>
>>>Granted.

>>
>>That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some* harm
>>always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.

>
>
> That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
> style. By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
> harm principle" quite pertinent.


The probability that *some* animals will die every time
a piece of heavy farm machinery ventures into a field
is extremely high; probably nearly 1. By contrast, the
probability that a human will die, other than the
equipment operator himself, is virtually zero. The
probability that humans will die even in the course of
a major urban construction project is extremely low.
One must distinguish between workers who may be killed
or injured in the course of their work, and innocent
bystanders or passers-by. The animals killed
collaterally in agriculture are not like construction
workers or factory workers; they are like a pedestrian
walking along the sidewalk next to a construction
project, and a brick or chunk of metal falls on him and
kills him. The workers know the risks, and they are
compensated for them. *Even so*, we still attempt to
minimize the risks both for the human participants and
the passers-by. No such effort is made for wildlife
living in farm fields.


>>>>>>If we
>>>>>>are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
>>>>>>acceptable,
>>>>>>then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses utterly and
>>>>>>must
>>>>>>be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.
>>>>>
>>>>>Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths that
>>>>>are
>>>>>an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
>>>>>activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of yet
>>>>>more
>>>>>animals.
>>>>
>>>>It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they place it
>>>>into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal products
>>>>actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to think,
>>>>then
>>>>that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die either
>>>>way,
>>>
>>>Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
>>>simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.

>>
>>The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
>>production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
>>produced.

>
>
> Of course.
>
>
>>>>so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad dichotomy
>>>>between farming animals and not doing so,
>>>
>>>Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
>>>between,...

>>
>>If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
>>collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by non-vegan
>>foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.

>
>
> Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
> to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
> rather harder to establish.


It's childishly simple.


>>>>provided that animals are not forced to suffer unduly.
>>>
>>>Yes. That's a very important qualification.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>><----end----->
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The point being made here is that the implicit "compassionate diet"
>>>>>>status
>>>>>>that vegans like to pretend to is a sham.
>>>>>
>>>>>Vegans frequently generalise and overstate their case but to claim that
>>>>>it is a totally worthless, empty gesture is disingenuous.
>>>>
>>>>I can accept what you're saying, but I believe that the overstating,
>>>>misrepresenting taints what they do to a great degree. If it were done
>>>>with
>>>>honesty and humility it would be much less objectionable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Animals are killed in large
>>>>>>numbers by all forms of agriculture, so the "animal rights" dichotomy
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>that light is an outright lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the more modest version of the CD argument and is rather more
>>>>>convincing to me. Of course CDs apply just the same to animal feed but
>>>>>it is plausible that some game and grass fed meat products involve
>>>>>fewer violations of animal rights than most readily available plant
>>>>>foods.
>>>>
>>>>That's what I mean by a holistic, inclusive view.
>>>
>>>The CD argument is certainly a useful tool but in my view livestock
>>>farming can even be justified without invoking it. I might attempt
>>>that some day.

>>
>>Read this. http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/...malsplace.html

>
>
> Thanks for that. There was one particular fragment of the article that
> made an impression on me: " a human morality based on individual
> rights makes for an awkward fit when applied to the natural world.
> This should come as no surprise: morality is an artifact of human
> culture, devised to help us negotiate social relations. It's very good
> for that. But just as we recognize that nature doesn't provide an
> adequate guide for human social conduct, isn't it anthropocentric
> to assume that our moral system offers an adequate guide for nature?"
>
> It makes a certain pragmatic sense to adopt a moral duality; a system
> of thought to guide our conduct within the "human realm" and a seperate
>
> system to guide our conduct within the "natural realm".
>
>
>>>>>>It's a dishonest world-view, which is why it
>>>>>>must be discarded in favour of something more holistic and inclusive.
>>>>>

>

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


Leif Erikson wrote:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a
> >>>>>result
> >>>>>of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global
> >>>>>warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances".
> >>>>
> >>>>You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference
> >>>>between
> >>>>doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something
> >>>>that
> >>>>kills outright.
> >>>
> >>>Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
> >>>collateral and intentional animal deaths?
> >>
> >>Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk
> >>of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
> >>populations.

> >
> >
> > Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
> > kind.

>
> The difference in numbers is several orders of
> magnitude, dummy. A difference that large tells you
> there is some *underlying* difference in kind.
>
> What do you suppose it is, davey "pesco-vegan"? Let's
> see, below...
>
>
> > Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
> > over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
> > deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
> > fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
> > chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
> > "statistical" deaths.

>
> davey, *why* do you suppose there is no mitigation in
> place for those things, except in cases of endangered
> species? That is, apart from species that are
> threatened or endangered, no mitigation is required for
> the use of the technologies you mentioned in order to
> prevent animal deaths. Our concern is not with
> individual animals, who have no right nor expectation
> of not being harmed, but rather with species that we
> don't want to see become extinct.
>
> But it's different with humans. Technology use must be
> done in such a way that the threat to *individual*
> humans is minimized. Not only that, but mitigation
> efforts are ongoing and constant: cars, appliances,
> airplanes, etc. are safer today than they were in 1996,
> and they were safer in 1996 than they were in 1986, and
> so on.
>
> What do you suppose the difference in kind is, davey,
> you ****wit?


The lack of mitigation can be seen as a difference in kind
but so can the difference between collateral and intentional
deaths. IOW we have a "hierachy"; collateral mitigated(cm),
collateral unmitigated(cx), intentional(i). You object to vegans
differentiating between the cx deaths and the i deaths but
are insisting on differentiating between cm and cx. This
is arbitrary and self serving of you.



  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Nathan Nobis vs. Carl Cohen


"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote
>> > Dutch wrote:

>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
>> >> > collateral and intentional animal deaths?
>> >>
>> >> Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term
>> >> risk
>> >> of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
>> >> populations.
>> >
>> > Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
>> > kind. Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
>> > over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
>> > deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
>> > fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
>> > chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
>> > "statistical" deaths.

>>
>> Some of that is valid, but the majority of animal harm in agriculture is
>> much more immediate and large-scale. Pesticides and herbicides are lethal
>> to
>> small animals, and Davis concludes that running machinery through fields
>> is
>> also.
>>
>> >> > There is little doubt that
>> >> > human activity causes global warming and little doubt that global
>> >> > warming increases the number of natural disasters like droughts,
>> >> > floods, storms and heatwaves as well as increasing the incidence
>> >> > of tropical diseases. IOW people, who would otherwise live, die as
>> >> > a consequence of greenhouse gas emmissions.
>> >>
>> >> It's not the same at all, c'mon Dave use your head. To be analagous to
>> >> the
>> >> treatment of animals we would have to level whole occupied
>> >> subdivisions
>> >> with
>> >> giant machines, and spray them with deadly nerve gas.
>> >
>> > If you simply want to count numbers of deaths then the difference is
>> > entirely of degree.

>>
>> A difference in numbers counted in many orders of magnitude amounts to a
>> difference in kind.

>
> Yes and no. The alleged fallacy of objetcing to the 101st death applies
> to both situations.


That doesn't follow at all. The 1001st death principle refers to the vegan's
obsession with the death of the animal on the dinner plate and his relative
indifference to the 1000 other animals who die in support of a human
lifestyle. Pollution or other indirect long-term harmful practices are not
comparable in kind.

>> If you wish to make distinctions based on how
>> > "direct"
>> > ,for want of a better word, the deaths are then there is no reason to
>> > deny similar distinctions between shooting an animal in the head and
>> > undertaking activities that endanger their lives in some way.

>>
>> It's not a matter of directness, that wasn't my point. If using a field
>> for
>> agriculture negatively impacts *most* of the animals on the land,
>> killing,
>> poisoning, injuring or displacing them, then that is different than
>> acknowledging that once in a while an animal is caught in the thresher.
>> The
>> latter would be classed as a statistical anomaly and not a moral factor.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> We don't
>> >> >> >> continue with anything which involves the routine slaughter of
>> >> >> >> humans.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not on anything like the same scale as the slaughter of animals
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > is still there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On a statisical scale, but except for incidents like nuclear
>> >> >> accidents,
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> on a comparable scale to the harm caused to animals.
>> >> >
>> >> > Granted.
>> >>
>> >> That's where the difference lies. Statistical probablilty of *some*
>> >> harm
>> >> always exists, in every situation, that does not form a case.
>> >
>> > That's precisely my problem with the collateral deaths argument, Etter
>> > style.

>>
>> It depends on how you figure the degree of harm. I assume that it is
>> massive, you may think it's statisically insignificant.

>
> No. I think you are exaggerating it but I don't claim it is
> statistically insignificant.
>
>> > By contrast I find the more modest formulation aka the "least
>> > harm principle" quite pertinent.

>>
>> He does not conclude that the harm done by threshing machines alone is
>> statistically insignificant, not even factoring in plowing or spraying.
>> He
>> finds that animal populations are seriously decimated.

>
> AFAICR he concludes very little. He cites too studies comparing
> populations per ha for a given species before and after but i
> unable to say how much of the discrepency is due to displacement
> and how much is due to mortality.
>
>> >> >> >> If we
>> >> >> >> are going to inevitably decide that harm to *some* animals is
>> >> >> >> acceptable,
>> >> >> >> then the theoretical concept of "animals rights" collapses
>> >> >> >> utterly
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> must
>> >> >> >> be discarded in favor of a more logical world-view.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Alternatively we can take the view that incidental animal deaths
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > an almost unavoidable consequence of modern human technological
>> >> >> > activity are acceptable but don't justify deliberate slaughter of
>> >> >> > yet
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > animals.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's not that they justify the slaughter of animals or not, they
>> >> >> place
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> into context. If it were the case that abstaining from animal
>> >> >> products
>> >> >> actually was a "cruelty-free" lifestyle as many vegans tend to
>> >> >> think,
>> >> >> then
>> >> >> that would be an entirely different reality. As it is, animals die
>> >> >> either
>> >> >> way,
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes but the numbers of animals that die are not equivalent, not that
>> >> > simple death counts are a sensible way of comparing different diets.
>> >>
>> >> The numbers of animals that are harmed or killed will vary with the
>> >> production of a particular food, depending on where, when and how it's
>> >> produced.
>> >
>> > Of course.

>>
>> Which is why it's a fallacy to simple compare vegetables and meat.

>
> Meat [...] production causes more harm than vegetable production
> is a fallacy if the [...] is "always" but not if the [...] is
> "generally".


Exactly, but veganism isn't ever presented assuming "general" validity,
that's one of my primary objections to it.

>> >> >> so it's just not justifiable to assume a right/wrong good/bad
>> >> >> dichotomy
>> >> >> between farming animals and not doing so,
>> >> >
>> >> > Indeed. It's more like relatively good, relatively bad, somewhere in
>> >> > between,...
>> >>
>> >> If you are placing a value on animals harmed, you have to consider
>> >> collateral deaths, which means that vegan foods can be trumped by
>> >> non-vegan
>> >> foods. This must be acknowledged and factored into the moral equation.
>> >
>> > Sure. The appeal of veganism is that it is a very simple and easy rule
>> > to follow whereas comparisons between difficult degrees of "harm" are
>> > rather harder to establish.

>>
>> It's simple to follow, if you place very little value on enjoyment of
>> food,

>
> A matter of individual taste how much more enjoyable an omnivore
> diet is compared with a vegan one.


Hardly. In fact I think a major factor why vegans proseltyse so vehemently
is their wish to have company in their suffering.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roger Cohen on French food in the NYT [email protected] General Cooking 6 01-09-2009 07:44 PM
Shopping a al Leonard Cohen Gill Smith General Cooking 20 29-10-2008 09:28 PM
Joyce Zac & Allissa Cohen fland514 Vegan 0 02-07-2006 02:43 AM
Alissa Cohen fland514 Vegan 0 14-06-2006 02:43 AM
Ping: Louis Cohen jmcquown General Cooking 1 01-08-2004 03:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"